I'm Afraid To Buy The FW 190 Dora - Page 13 - ED Forums


Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-16-2017, 05:05 PM   #121
ED Translator / Moderator
Nirvi's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 1,437

Originally Posted by BuzzU View Post
It can be found on this forum. Research it.
Correct. But it can also be found on this forum that this comment was madeduring the development phase. The FM got adjusted later. We never got to fly the Dora in this phase of development Erich tested it.
Nirvi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2017, 06:46 PM   #122
acdelta57's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 553

Originally Posted by BuzzU View Post
A lot of assumptions on your part flyboy. You don't have a clue who I am. Easy for you to talk like that at a keyboard.

For the record. I didn't mention the flight model in DCS until it was brought up by others. My complaint is what's charged for DCS with a flight model no better than the others. When a real WW2 pilot says the flight model is wrong for the Dora. I believe him over someone who flies civilian planes. I have a friend who's a real P-51 pilot. I'll see what he says about the P-51 in DCS when he tries it.
Well not sure what you mean about assumptions in there because I very clearly stated what and where I had experience. You may not like it but others may find it useful information, so perhaps get over yourself? The fact that you like to resort to name calling is well, not an assumption, but proof that you lack intellectual maturity... but as you were good sir. Fly on!
1000 miles of road will take you around town, a 1000 feet of runway can take you around the world...unless your in a Huey, you can go anywhere with no runway in a Huey!

multiplayer name ''DustOff=3=6''
acdelta57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2017, 08:04 AM   #123
ED Team
Yo-Yo's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,138

Originally Posted by BuzzU View Post
Well, if DCS is so accurate. Why does Erich Brunotte say the real Dora never felt like the version in DCS?

It's ok. You spent a lot of money on DCS and want to think you didn't waste the money on an inaccurate game.

Making a plane harder to fly doesn't make it more accurate if the real plane wasn't like that.
I have a better question: why was this episode included in the video?
Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як осколки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів
There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.
Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Last edited by Yo-Yo; 05-17-2017 at 08:12 AM.
Yo-Yo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2017, 08:45 AM   #124
Join Date: May 2013
Location: South of France
Posts: 782

1. Erich flew the real thing 72 years ago. That's a terribly long time and it has an impact on how we memorize things. I was born a few weeks before the Dora's were forcibly retired, and I find it difficult to remember details of what happened "only" 60 years ago.
2. Erich was exposed to an early version of the Dora way before release and the module has been improved since.
3. The fundamental differences between flying this monster in combat in 1945 with all your senses feeling accelerations, vibrations, hits, pain, fear etc. and a PC simulation where only your eyes and ears provide feedback in a comfortable environment are so huge that, no matter how good the simulation is, it would not have felt real to Erich.

Frankly I find some of this discussion pointless and the communication style of some has potential for improvement. People on this forum ought to respect each other even when they disagree!

PS: I love to fly DCS's Dora simulation.
Windows 10 Pro 64Bit | i7-4790 CPU |16 GB RAM|SSD System Disk|SSD Gaming Disk| MSI GTX-1080 Gaming 8 GB| Acer XB270HU | TM Warthog HOTAS | VKB Gladiator Pro | MongoosT-50 | MFG Crosswind Pedals | TrackIR 5
LeCuvier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2017, 06:33 PM   #125
Aluminum Donkey
Aluminum Donkey's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cambridge, ON, O Canada, Eh
Posts: 305

Originally Posted by BuzzU View Post
I'm afraid i'm going to really like it and want to fly it all the time. I have this thing about not wanting to shoot American pilots.

Maybe I could just shoot their wings off so they can bail out.
If it makes you feel better, you can always 'defect' and shoot down your own German wingmen, then start a new mission flying the Fw-190 on the American side

In sim world, you can do anything you want.
Asus Z170-P, i5-6600k at 4.5 GHz, 1.35V w/ CM Hyper 212 EVO, 2 x 8GB GSkill Ripjaws 4 @ 3000MHz 15-15-15-35, Zotac GTX 1070, HP Omen 32" 2560x1440 single screen, TM Cougar HOTAS, homebrew 3-point headtracking w/ Opentrack.

Flying: The art of throwing yourself at the ground, and having all the rules and regulations get in the way!

If man was meant to fly, he would have been born with a lot more money!
Aluminum Donkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2017, 11:09 AM   #126
Senior Member
Ala13_ManOWar's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Spain
Posts: 1,148

Wow, I saw the topic starting and it was all greetings and happiness about DCS, then I'm back a days later and it turned out to be a harsh discussion .

I don't know (perused the whole thread a bit, but it's too long now) how or why it turned out to this discussion, and some things has been answered now, I think. But if you let me squeeze in,

Originally Posted by BuzzU View Post
My complaint is what's charged for DCS with a flight model no better than the others.
Well, I don't know if you know the "old days" in where a flight simulator were the ultimate piece of software (way back now, yes), but most important, they used to be mostly "study sims", that means a whole simulator were dedicated to a single aircraft to the last consequences. That is, Falcon for instance, but not necessarily Falcon 4.0, the last one, Falcon 3.0, or 2.0, or 1.0, or the great great grandfather of DCS, SSI Su-27 Flanker, then Flanker 2.0, then 2.5. What were one buying there? a single aircraft, as a whole simulator with environment, usually a single map, luckily a Campaign or some single missions. One paid happily 50$ (and that was 25 years ago…) for those simulators, just because those were really good study simulator, and nobody complained about having one single aircraft, people understood the effort to make that single aircraft as real as it gets (with the available computers) was enough, though it's true it came with all the stuff surrounding it, the map, the environment, the possible campaign and missions, all right.

Then another developer invented a different platform, in where you could have a lot of stuff, not so accurate as a study sim, not even close in fact, but hey, we had lots of stuff with more or less "believable" FM though not so accurate, and the developer was happy to release aircraft not as single ones but lots of them quite easily with that "believable" FM though very general indeed and lacking specific detail to specific aircraft. That was a product of their time, but looking at it critically nowadays, we have to agree it was kinda arcadish style even though we were happy to have hundreds of aircraft in a single platform.

Now what are we having? DCS study simulator, just ED had the idea after 20 years to create a common platform called DCSW in where every single study simulator of an aircraft could be installed and used together with other aircraft, but all of them study simulators and you shouldn't mistake the fact of all the modules installed all at once in a single environment with that meaning this is an easy to develop generalist arcadish style simulator. No sir, this is still a study simulator not to be confused with others generalist simulators trying to sell how realistic they are when they are not. That said, is it cheap or expensive? Well bearing in mind time of development, complexity, and the fact that you are buying a study simulator "as real as it gets" with our current computers, which is really close to RL, not a generalist one releasing "believable" (only more or less I would say) though not detailed at all aircraft in a short period of time, well it's still not cheap though DCS simulation quality can be tell from a distance and 50$ is the same price we paid some 25 years ago for any study sim . Is DCS FM better… hell it is by far, but maybe the question for you is, is it worth it should you not going to appreciate why is it better? That's what one have to ponder, and it's fine, though I still don't understand what happened since your first post for you to change your mind like that .

Talking about the real pilots stuff. That's not always completely reliable. I have several friends, real pilots, that tried my rig and simulator and they weren't very happy to see how hard it is to get used to a simulator lacking feeling. One of them having flying lots of agricultural and fire fighting high powered aircraft can't get used to take off in DCS propeller engines, he never used simulators before. Other one, is a vet with 3000 F-5A hours among others and also was a basic instructor using T-6 and several other tail dragger props. He's very happy with DCS when he discovered it some time ago, though still props in DCS isn't his best liking because he can't get completely used to the lack of feeling, and his controls set is not the best I have to say. On the other hand another friend, PPL pilot, aerobatic pilot that managed to be champion in lower categories, he got his license at the same time than me but we both were "simulator pilots" since early ages. He wasn't very sure about some details in the 109, but he's using a short stick, the time he got at home and flew with my long stick he discovered why he wasn't sure about those details and flew like a charm with the 109. Told me he should get a long stick . I myself, well, I haven't fly any warbird (well a Tiger Moth does count? ) but being a simulator user since my childhood I'm absolutely happy to see the real deal I know perfectly depicted in DCS like it is not anywhere else. Does it count better my own experience or the experience of the more experienced than me real pilots that I have to advise about simulators? Think the first time your P-51 pilot friend tries to take off in your sim if he's not able to do so he may be ashamed of it in front of you and will probably say it's not real at all. Does that kind of bad experiences with a sim count?

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war." -- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Last edited by Ala13_ManOWar; 05-20-2017 at 11:12 PM.
Ala13_ManOWar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2017, 07:05 PM   #127
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Cali
Posts: 24

I think it is excellent point that study sims should retain their realism. I think DCS excels at this amongst its competitors. However it should be noted that with advent of more WW2 aircraft, they are venturing into relatively uncharted waters. I think ED knows this...

It's only when thrown together in a combat situation, especially with prop planes, where minor differences matter. Manifold pressures that are off, or cooling regimens which are off, can dictate win or lose. Gun damage is harder to simulate than missile damage. Dogfighting is more prolonged and differences in aircraft performance are much more closely perceived.

Prop planes are the toughest to simulate right, especially in a relative way, while maintaining the level of accuracy that DCS is known for and, which is expected of it. Not only because of the complex aerodynamic effects that a prop throws into play (bringing in much of the same complexity that helos have), but also because they are flown on the edge routinely, with smaller performance margin differences between aircraft than say two modern jet fighters.
Pzkfw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2017, 07:09 PM   #128
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Cali
Posts: 24

I am looking forward to ED bringing out the best in simulation fidelity amongst what I consider to be the most immersive and purely-skill driven combat period in aviation history. That will include fleshing out existing fighters and making sure they are complete, including weapons packages and looking at comparative accuracy of their FMs.

I believe ED is going to lead the way in this regard, and I hope their philosophy continues with a firm commitment to detail-oriented realistic simulation - and not to deviate to pander to the masses (however tempting, this is a short term solution, only).
Pzkfw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2017, 10:16 AM   #129
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 214

For me personally there's no doubt that the DCS flight models are the best. They should be with the amount of time and effort that goes into them. That's not to say all the other WWII sims have bad flight models, but the DCS ones are something special. DCS also excels by a country mile in systems modelling, nothing else comes close. That's not just clickable cockpits, it's the level of detail that all the internal systems are modelled with: it's just remarkable.

Where DCS currently falls down as a WWII combat sim (IMO) is:
- damage modelling: planes flying with 1 wing, wings falling off all the time, engines that smoke but never die, very weak MG damage, etc.
- stability: DCS crashes quite frequently for me, and it has lots of bugs and glitches that have gone unfixed for a long time.
- netcode: multiplayer is very laggy in a way other simulators are not.
- performance: even a monster rig struggles with flying over the cities in caucuses.
- scenery and environment: is not (yet) appropriate for a WWII scenario
- price: DCS is very expensive
- AI: are very bad, don't fly anything resembling the real flight model, and even worse damage model.
- visuals: other sims (IMO) currently look better (although the Nevada terrain is simply stunning).
- plane selection: not well balanced, or even particularly representative of the time period. No bombers, and currently no plans for player flyable bombers.
- size of community: the WWII community in DCS is currently pretty small.

For me DCS is currently a great flight simulator that happens to have some WWII planes, but not particularly a WWII aerial combat simulation. Different story with modern aircraft, but with WWII planes that's where it currently sits for me: more like X-Plane, or Prepar3d.

So as for whether the OP should buy the Fw190 - buy it if you think you'd enjoy flying it, and learning the systems because that's where DCS excels.

Last edited by Tomsk; 05-20-2017 at 10:40 AM.
Tomsk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2017, 04:08 PM   #130
Schwarzfeld's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 188

The last real acft I trained on was a Piper Cub... learned in Cessnas/Pipers as a kid.

Trust me when I say there is NO EQUAL to DCS' taildragger/prop acft flight model. It simply isn't duplicated anywhere else, no other sim, not even close, can't hold a candle. As long as you've got a good stick/throttle/pedals/trackir setup, its quite literally as close as you'll ever get to the real thing, and the upside is, you don't have to blow $200/hr for flight instruction and maintenance... plus no fear of death

I've got more time in the 190 than any other taildragger in DCS, I really enjoy flying it. Its the most user-friendly, well-balanced and fun to fly tailwheel in the sim. Once the spitfire is polished up and out of beta... it may be pretty close. Honestly they're all a treat to learn and fly but the 190 is kind of the goldilocks mix in my opinion.

Though... I recommend you learn the 109 first, then move on to other taildraggers. If you can safely takeoff/pattern/land in a 109, you can fly aaaaanything.
Schwarzfeld is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:27 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.